You aren't fooling anyone.Hi Newbirth!
Is that your age and county?
I’m in Hyde Park and the age matches, so one poster wonders if you are me and a second went bonkers.
You aren't fooling anyone.Hi Newbirth!
Is that your age and county?
I’m in Hyde Park and the age matches, so one poster wonders if you are me and a second went bonkers.
Absolutely not. You clearly haven't yet picked up on what I have been discussing with JM, which is the applicability of John 10:34-36 to Thomas's remarks.Well, the father is God...If you think Thomas was calling Jesus God then he must believe Jesus is the father.
See above. In the Old Testament, "God" could be used of men without any confusion with the Father himself.So you think Thomas believes Jesus is both God and Lord?
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
If something is divine, it is "of God" or "from God" dependent on whether we are talking about the jurisdiction of heaven ("of God") or earth ("from God").You did not say anything about what Divine means...You said... Divine status = from God. Now I am asking you what "Divine" means.
So you know this but ignores it?
As I said you are arguing from the fringes. It is highly unlikely that John 13:13 is an example of a TSKTS construction since at least one of the substantives is likely the functional equivalent of a proper noun. You are making the extraordinary claim that Jesus is being called God here, yet all you can muster is a dubious example (John 13:13 )to support your case, when there are literally dozens of clear and irrefutable verses from the bible where the TSKTS always denotes two referents.This is what sometimes happens when two different titles (which, by the way, aren't functional equivalents for proper names) are used in reference to a single person. This is what occurs in John 13:13 and John 20:28. Your analysis is inaccurate, and your assertions are false.
καὶ ἐπίστευσαν τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ὃν εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
That is unscriptural. The apostle John identified the Word made flesh as Jesus.You are attempting to play games with words. John identified the word as Jesus as I said.
No, it is not, I did a search on Lee Magee and that is the info I got.Hi Newbirth!
Is that your age and county?
I’m in Hyde Park and the age matches, so one poster wonders if you are me and a second went bonkers.
Would you please provide a link for this? PM or otherwise.No, it is not, I did a search on Lee Magee and that is the info I got.
I certainly have and it is not applicable.Absolutely not. You clearly haven't yet picked up on what I have been discussing with JM, which is the applicability of John 10:34-36 to Thomas's remarks.
You are wrong...the problem is in translation. The generic term for God is Elohim in Hebrew, not God. Translators refuse to write YHWH or Adonai leaving a lot of confusion in the OT. The NT is just as bad since they translated it from a Greek standpoint when it is rooted in Hebrew history.See above. In the Old Testament, "God" could be used of men without any confusion with the Father himself.
Is there a reference or is that your own reasoning? DivineIf something is divine, it is "of God" or "from God" dependent on whether we are talking about the jurisdiction of heaven ("of God") or earth ("from God").
It is the link I posted beforeWould you please provide a link for this? PM or otherwise.
I got it from Lee Magee's profile. At least I think so unless it was a glitch in the system.Why else, then, would you write "72 From Dutchess County - Hyde Park, NY"?
Actually you got it from my pic as a follower of Lee Magee.I got it from Lee Magee's profile. At least I think so unless it was a glitch in the system.
I can accept this. Your writing styles are different enough. That was a very strange thing to post with no context, especially since it pertains to an entirely different person. Sorry for the confusion Steven Avery.I got it from Lee Magee's profile. At least I think so unless it was a glitch in the system.
It was intended for Lee Magee... Not for you. I asked if it was him...You grabbed it and ran it to make me look bad.I can accept this. Your writing styles are different enough. That was a very strange thing to post with no context, especially since it pertains to an entirely different person. Sorry for the confusion Steven Avery.
You do look bad. It didn't even pertain to Lee Magee, and your post had no context.It was intended for Lee Magee... Not for you. I asked if it was him...You grabbed it and ran it to make me look bad.
It's not fringe. It is the standard opinion on both texts. There's nothing dubious about either of them.As I said you are arguing from the fringes. It is highly unlikely that John 13:13 is an example of a TSKTS construction since at least one of the substantives is likely the functional equivalent of a proper noun. You are making the extraordinary claim that Jesus is being called God here, yet all you can muster is a dubious example (John 13:13 )to support your case, when there are literally dozens of clear and irrefutable verses from the bible where the TSKTS always denotes two referents.
Not unless you imagine that "the word" and "Jesus" refer to different beings. The text clearly isn't saying that.That is unscriptural. The apostle John identified the Word made flesh as Jesus.
Post #214 This is Magee's post and my response. It has nothing to do with you. This actually makes you look bad.You do look bad. It didn't even pertain to Lee Magee, and your post had no context.
Are you a Palestinian? 72 From Dutchess County - Hyde Park, NYLee Magee said:
If you are not a Palestinian, then the entire bible is none of your business.
It is a possibility. When the Hebrew Bible says God is one, there is no reason to suppose that this must mean that numerically there is only one God.Both beings are not called God. If that is the case then we have two Gods...Do we have two Gods?
This is a false dichotomy. For example it is possible that "God" in its fullest sense refers to the joint functioning of three ontologically identical beings either individually or as some type of unity that we humans don't, or perhaps even can't, understand.As long as you are saying Jesus is God you either have two Gods or Jesus is his own Father.
My remarks were about John 1:1, why are you talking about these verses? They aren't even contextually identical.John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 16:27
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
My words prove that you have tragically misunderstood what I wrote, even after I pointed it out to you.those are your words John The link proves it...
You can't be serious. I hope "the Father" and Jesus have greater agreement than that!It means the same thing when Jesus said he and his father are one. Two are one in agreement
It's what John wrote in Jn. 1:1 and 20:28.U are claiming that Jesus is God. To us, there is but one God the father and one Lord Jesus Christ. If Jesus is God he is either a second God or he is his own father
They clearly do. Look at the underlined words and try harder.There is nothing to grasp. You are claiming what the passage does not say.
He applied the term "God" directly to Jesus when he quoted what Thomas said in John 20:28 and didn't mention it as another of Thomas's mistakes.He did not apply the term God to Jesus.....U are making an assumption. The author is trying to tell you where and what Jesus was before he was made flesh. You are assuming that he was another God. Or He was his own father. Either way you are wrong.
It depends upon what "God" means in the utterance, as I have explained above.Well if Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus then Mary is the mother of God.
It's not convincing argument. What I have been arguing is irrefutable: "John" referred to Jesus as "God".I have given you evidence... Jesus says God is his father and God said Jesus is his son. We believe there is one God.
There's no reason why it must.That would go against...
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Do not sons typically have the same ontology as their parents?Since this is true it means that God is Jesus' father, so how can Jesus be God?
I have.You have not shown that in any way or form.
He did. It's written in the gospel for all to see.No, he did not you are assuming that he did.
No. Your conception of this topic is too narrow for you to see the other possibilities.But you are not seeing how silly your position is. You just agreed that Jesus is the son of God, that would make God the father of Jesus. Since there is only one God, you are left in a hot seat. Because you said Jesus is God.
The scripture is what I'm using for my facts. You just don't see them for what they are.rubbish, you gave your opinions not facts. The scripture gives the facts, Your opinion of what the scripture says is your opinion.
And my point was that what you wrote was factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. You seem to be doing this out of ignorance rather than maliciousness, though.No, it does not. You telling me why is your opinion. I don't care about your opinions. You cannot say, John said and then write what John did not say. That is my point.
You have proven throughout this post that your conception of this topic is shallow and your position hasn't taken into consideration other possibilities.You just proved that you don't understand.
I was referring to Jn. 1:1 and 20:28. Your remarks about the context of another passage isn't going to change the words written in another place.The passage tells you what Jesus calls himself. I did not interpret the passage or the whole book.
I said that I believe that the Jews would think that. You lack either the ability or the desire to quote me or represent my arguments accurately.John Milton said:
Even then, I would expect those Jews to understand that life can only be granted from God, so if Jesus can give life through his (not God's) name...he would be God just like the author claimed in the very first verse.
You falsely claimed that life can only be granted from God.
Your post didn't blow anything away. It can't change the words that John wrote.so if Jesus can give life he would be God. I posted a passage that blows away your nonsense. And all you can come up with is Ah yes, the old interpret-the-whole-book-by-isolated-passages-in-other-contexts technique? Jesus himself says he is the son of God. So which God are you saying he is?
I've not denied scripture does say that. I've said that it has no relevance to John referring to Jesus as God in Jn. 1:1 and 20:28.It is what the scripture says John...deal with it...
It does a bit. Your error led to confusion on my part.This actually makes you look bad.
This is the part I was referring to when I said it didn't pertain to Lee. You couldn't figure that out on your own? I shouldn't be surprised since you couldn't distinguish the profiles of two different posters.72 From Dutchess County - Hyde Park, NY
You are not an authorityI certainly have and it is not applicable.
In the NT, Elohim translates to God (see John 10:34-36)., as does YHWH (e.g. God the Father is the same as YHWH the Father). Therefore you are wrong.You are wrong...the problem is in translation. The generic term for God is Elohim in Hebrew, not God. Translators refuse to write YHWH or Adonai leaving a lot of confusion in the OT. The NT is just as bad since they translated it from a Greek standpoint when it is rooted in Hebrew history.
Shows you are not very bright: Merriam Webster "divine: " of, relating to, or coming directly from God" (exactly per my definition).Is there a reference or is that your own reasoning? Divine